The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-08-10
The q. S. Supreme Court Vacancy
A Constitutional Question.

fact that the death of Justice Woods,
will reopen an important Constitutional
question which involves the putting of
every State in the Union in the power
of the federal courts with respect to its
financial obligations. The facts are
thus stated by the Herald:
In the series of Virginia bond cases de-
cided in April, 1885, the court held that
the Malone Riddleberger "readjuster" leg
islation of 1882 and 1884, by which Vir-
ginia refused to honor its bond coupons.
was a violation of thai clause of the fed
eral constitution which forbids a State TO
impair the obligation OF its contracts, nd
that in spite of such legislation the State
was bound to receive the coupons in pay
ment of taxes and debts due the Common
wealth. 1t held that if tax collector re-
fused to receive the coupons and then
levied upon the property of the tax payer,
the latter might sue the former for tres
that the tax collector might be restrained
by injunction from levying on the prop
erty of a taxpayer who had rendered the
amount of his taxes in coupons. Now
mark the effect of this decision. The
State repudiates its bonds. The holder
offers the coupons in payment of taxes.
The State refuses to accept them. 1t then
proceeds to force payment in money. The
federal courts step in and protect the tax
payer. They stop the State from enforc-
ing money payment. What is the re-
suit? The State must either receive its
repudiated bonds or it must receive moth
ing. 1t must meet its obligations or for.
felt its revenues.
This was saying in effect that the State
shall receive its coupons in payment of
taxes, whether they were issued in vio-
lation of the constitution of the State
Gas in the case of the repudiated Missis-
sippi Union Bank Bcnds) or not. As
the Herald remarks, "it recognized in
the national judiciary authority to en-
| force contracts between a State and its
creditors; to coerce State into the full
| flment of its contract and the payment
of its Indebtedness. Obviously that was
marked inroad into the domain of
State sovereignty signal curtailInent
of State sovereignty and enlargement of
federal sovereignty. And this was done
for the first time two years ago. The
important principle affirmed by the Su-
preme Court in 1885 was then affirmed
for the first time"
The defense of Virginia was that an
injunction or damage suit by an indi-
vidual against State officer is suit
against the State, and that every State
is exempt from such litigation by the
eleventh amendment of the federal con-
stitution. This view was taken by a
minority of the Supreme Court JUS
tees. In an elaborate dissenting opin-
ion, written by Justice Bradley, it was
maintained that
State officers have no power but what
the State gives them. They act for and
on behalf of the State, and in no other
way. To sue them, therefore, because
they will not receive the coupons in pay
ment of taxes, is virtually to sue the
State. The whole object is to coerce
the State. 1t is idle to say that the pro-
ceeding is only against the officers.
Justice Bradley then used this forci-
bic language
These suits are attempts to coerce a
StaCe by judicial proceedings. They
are that and nothing else, 1t is useless
to attempt to deceive ourselves by an
adroit use of words or by train of
metaphysical reasoniDgs. We cannot
in that way change the nature of
things.
This is the first time, we believe, since
the eleventh amendment was adopted in
which State has been coerced by judi
cial proceedings at the suit of individu-
ais in the federal courts. That this is
such a case seems one of the plainest
propositions that can be stated.
The court was divided as follows: For
affirmation of the doctrine of federal
court Jurisdiction, Justices Field, Har-
Ian, Woods, Matthews and Blatchford.
In the minority we're Justices Waite,
Miller, Bradley and Gray. The death of
Justice Woods leaves the members now
on the bench evenly divided 1t is rea-
sonable to assume that the question
will come before the court again. And,
therefore, the Importance of the APP
pointment which is soon to be made for
filling the vacancy occasioned by the
death of Justice Woods The decision
as it stands strikes directly at the integ-
rity and sovereignty of the States.